United States v. Kevin Honeycutt ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •      Case: 19-30098      Document: 00515381460         Page: 1    Date Filed: 04/14/2020
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    No. 19-30098                          April 14, 2020
    Lyle W. Cayce
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                                                       Clerk
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.
    KEVIN HONEYCUTT,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Louisiana
    USDC No. 3:18-CV-1346
    USDC No. 3:15-CR-58-2
    Before DENNIS, ELROD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM: *
    Kevin Honeycutt, federal prisoner # 17578-035, moves for a certificate of
    appealability (COA) to appeal the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion
    challenging his sentences for conspiring to distribute and to possess with
    intent to distribute a controlled substance, possessing with intent to distribute
    a controlled substance, and being a convicted felon in possession of firearms.
    In his § 2255 motion, Honeycutt claimed that his trial counsel rendered
    * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
    CIR. R. 47.5.4.
    Case: 19-30098    Document: 00515381460     Page: 2   Date Filed: 04/14/2020
    No. 19-30098
    ineffective assistance during the plea negotiation stage and relative to his
    decision to plead guilty or proceed to trial. He also requested an evidentiary
    hearing.
    To obtain a COA, a movant must make “a substantial showing of the
    denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Where a district court
    has denied claims on the merits, a movant must show “that jurists of reason
    could disagree with the district court’s resolution of his constitutional claims
    or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve
    encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 
    537 U.S. 322
    , 327
    (2003). Honeycutt has not met this standard with respect to his ineffective
    assistance claim and has therefore not shown an entitlement to a COA.
    We construe his motion for a COA with respect to the district court’s
    denial of an evidentiary hearing as a direct appeal of that issue, see Norman v.
    Stephens, 
    817 F.3d 226
    , 234 (5th Cir. 2016), and affirm. Honeycutt’s motion
    for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal is denied.
    COA DENIED; AFFIRMED; IFP DENIED.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 19-30098

Filed Date: 4/14/2020

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/14/2020